OtherLittleGuy:I forget. Are we still masturbating to Elizabeth Warren?

I really like presidential politics. Some people obsess over baseball stats, I spend hours looking at how the EV breakdown could be swayed by last-minute events or unexpected trends. But damn it's just way too early to start rubbing one off at random.

Gimme another six months, then I promise to be laser-focused and super-interested.

MisterTweak:OtherLittleGuy: I forget. Are we still masturbating to Elizabeth Warren?

I really like presidential politics. Some people obsess over baseball stats, I spend hours looking at how the EV breakdown could be swayed by last-minute events or unexpected trends. But damn it's just way too early to start rubbing one off at random.

Gimme another six months, then I promise to be laser-focused and super-interested.

Yeah, give the parties a month or two after the midterms to deal with what happens and then i'll start getting interested in the next presidential race

To be honest, I don't know. Jeb does have some good things going for him, and, well, Political families have been a thing since the Roman Republic, so I don't hold his last name against him.

That being said, if Hilldog is nominated, depending on who the Republicans nominate, I might, and I say *might* actually vote Democratic. (After all, I did vote for her hubby)Bill was decidedly more centrist than I thought he'd be, and Hillary seems to run in the same vein - that and I know she's a tough bird like Maggie Thatcher was, so I'm not too concerned with foriegn policy running over her.

It'll be an interesting race if she tosses her hat into the ring.

/She is, however, a tride and true politician and I have no illusions that she acts out of idealism so there's that negative.

Mugato:Yeah, a lot of things have been a thing since the Roman republic. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas.

How is Jeb running a bad idea? Just because his last name is "Bush" doesn't mean anything; other than he'll have his grandfather and brother to give him a heads up as to what it's like to sit in the captains chair. I think we should judge each candidate based on their positions, past positions and actions, not their last name.

Of course I'm one of the few that don't believe GW did such a horrible job with what was given him, so you'll have to take that into account. Still, I will judge Hillary based on Hillary and *not* Bill, I'll judge Jeb on Jeb and not either of the two Georges that precede him.

I think both Jeb and GW were at the fore front of immigration reform, however GW got side tracked by 9/11 and then lost the internal battle with the GOP later (remember AMNESTY!!) --- I think Jeb has some good notions on that and might actually be able to expand the Republican base to include more Hispanics, which, culturally speaking, is where most would seem to fit in.

Still, I want to see who else the Republicans want to send up, my biggest agenda item and voting ideal will be the push for decriminalization of marijuanna because I see that solving a host of problems around the country; it would impact economic issues, tax revenue\deficit issues, jobs and locking people into a life of poverty due to incarceration over something stupid - not to mention a decease in crime. That is the single issue I see effecting more problems than anything else anyone else has talked about.

Laser like focus on jobs? Sharight - neither party has done shaitImmigration Reform? Shaaright, both parties are polarized and no compromise in sightAbortion? So far down my list of "give a shaits" that it barely registersGay Marriage? Kind of down there with Abortion as far as "give a shaits"

Nope, I want a Small Government Conservative to practice what they preach and push hard for the end of Prohibition - or a "Progressive Democrat" - either one. The one that does it, will get my vote, end of story.

/Caviate: If neither side offers up that candidate then yea, will most likely go GOP but we'll have to see, may go third party out of principle.

Mugato:If you think nepotism and political dynasties are a good thing then that's your opinion. Hopefully most voters don't share that opinion.

I don't think political familes are such a bad thing. Did you hate Ted Kennedy? Were John and Jack bad because their father was in politics?Should Chelsea be barred from running because both her mother and father are in politics? Sharing the same name does not mean you share the same ideals and so I think we should judge each person individually. Of course outsiders should be encouraged to run, but people should not be barred simply because others in their family went into poltics too.

/and really, you should have continued reading, ignorant and closed minded is no way to go through life son ;)

thornhill:1) National numbers don't really matter. What counts is how popular she is in a few states.

2) It's all about turnout. She could easily have relatively high unfavorable numbers but still win big.

It's become the new normal. Look at how the GOP were crowing about Obama's shiatty approval numbers in the summer of 2012, and licking their chops at regaining the WH. So much so that Romney declined to even write a concession speech before getting the ass kicking of his life. Oops!

thornhill:1) National numbers don't really matter. What counts is how popular she is in a few states.

2) It's all about turnout. She could easily have relatively high unfavorable numbers but still win big.

If you were talking about a complete unknown, you'd have a point, but Hillary is someone people feel extremely strongly about, one way or another, and behind whom there's 20-odd years of opposition research.

Kurmudgeon:CanisNoir: Just because his last name is "Bush" doesn't mean anything

If you can't see the deficit spending, security failures, economic crashes and 9/11 when you say that name, it's because you're being willfully blind.

Every President has partaken of Deficit spending and that's more the problem of Congress since they hold the purse strings; the economic crash was not caused by either Bush, he just happened to be president when the shait hit the fan. And lastly, unless you're a truther, 9/11 was not caused by GW, like the economic crash, he just happened to be in the captains chair when the shait hit the fan.

Dwight_Yeast:thornhill: 1) National numbers don't really matter. What counts is how popular she is in a few states.

2) It's all about turnout. She could easily have relatively high unfavorable numbers but still win big.

If you were talking about a complete unknown, you'd have a point, but Hillary is someone people feel extremely strongly about, one way or another, and behind whom there's 20-odd years of opposition research.

Anyone who isn't going to vote for Hilary because they hate her and her husband was never going to vote for a Democrat. There are no voters who out there who are prochoice, for universal healthcare, raising taxes on the rich, strong environmental regulations, wall street reform, marriage equality, etc., but just hate Hilary so much that they're going to vote GOP.

Mugato:No, and it shouldn't give someone a leg up on the competition either. Unless you think it's pure coincidence that three Bushes have been the most qualified people for President.

Well first of all, I never said that it should give them a leg up, I simply stated that I would not rule Jeb out simply because of his last name. I agree, it should not give them a leg up, however you can't eliminate "Name Recognition" and those who hail from politically active families will generally have an advantage in that area.

Also, I never said I thought Jeb was the most qualified to be president; I said that I've heard good things about him, believe he is somone who could possibly bring more hispanics to the the Republican Base and is at the forefront of immigration reform. I then added, I would like to see who else the Republicans put up because that was not my single biggest agenda concern.

So, again, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Do you think someone should be barred from politics because of their last name and previous family members being involved in Politics or do you just have a hard on for all things named Bush but will give a pass to a Clinton or Kennedy?

the point was that the president is responsible for what happens during his tenure. your guy farked up right and left but you are giving him a pass because ??? i think bush farked up about 9/11 but will agree the case for that is weak. as to the recession, dear lord if it wasn't bush just who the hell do you think it was?

thornhill:but just hate Hilary so much that they're going to vote GOP.

i hate hillary that much but doubt there is anyway i'd vote GOP again. jeb with a democrat congress would be ok.

I don't think its a bad idea. This is America--anyone should run if they want to. I'd like to see someone like Bush run who embraces Common Core, speaks Spanish fluently and has a significant amount of experience in Latin American culture, as well as a convert to Catholicism. But for all those reasons Jeb is going to have a helluva time making it out of the primaries alive. You saw what your party did to Governor John Huntsman when he ran.

CanisNoir:Do you think someone should be barred from politics because of their last name and previous family members being involved in Politics or do you just have a hard on for all things named Bush but will give a pass to a Clinton or Kennedy?

I never said anyone should be barred from politics. I just don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that because you're related to a politician then you are qualified to be one. And the Kennedys were fark ups and I'm not thrilled with Hilary but she seems to be the only option going. I'm not even sure she's running.

Curious:the point was that the president is responsible for what happens during his tenure. your guy farked up right and left but you are giving him a pass because ??? i think bush farked up about 9/11 but will agree the case for that is weak. as to the recession, dear lord if it wasn't bush just who the hell do you think it was?

Well, I tend to take a more realistic approach to politics in realizing that there are three separate branches and each plays a part in running the country so I don't believe that everything that happens durring a Presidents tenure is their fault\responsability. The powder and fuse for the economic crash was laid before Bush became president and had more to do with regulatory laws created and overseen by both parties in Congress over the years. The shait just happened to hit the fan while Bush was in office.9/11: Nobody believed something like that was possible, the closest we had come was the previous attempt at bombing the trade center, and blame could be laid just as easily at the feet of the Clinton administration who was in charge when the barriers between agencies went up, and for not responding more forecefully to attacks on our assets around the world. I consider 9/11 to be a successful terrorist attack, not an unsuccesful president. Again, nobody, prior to that, thought it was even remotely possible.

The only way I see that GW "Farked up" is with the way the War in Iraq was handled, but I understand why he did what he did. There was tremendous preasure to keep a "small footprint" so as not to anger the "Arab street" with a huge influx of American Troops. in my opinion, you don't invade a country with a "Small Footprint" if you have any hopes of managing the peace once victory has been obtained. That's where he farked up in my opinion; the surge was him correcting course but at that point I think it was too little too late.

Please provide examples of where else he "farked up"? -- though admittedly it's a bit of a thread jack...